I don't subscribe to Netflix because I'm not entertained by such things. That doesn't mean others don't have a need for low-cost narrative diversion.
The fact that you don't acutely feel the need for a trustless digital money is very telling of your position in the world. I would recommend you read the book "Check Your Financial Privilege", by Alex Gladstein. You will find that, as an absolute fact, the use case is in extremely dire need of solving, and Bitcoin is the solution.
> People don't have problems sending money from A to B.
Respectfully, this is a deeply ignorant and factually incorrect sentence.
This indicates to me that: you have never travelled outside a limited set of highly-developed countries; never met anyone from a developing country; never had to send anyone more than $10,000; never had to send or receive money from another country; never met anyone who sends or receives remittances; never done any cross-border business transaction requiring FX conversions.
In some of the above instances, it is technically possible to send money from A to B, but only at very high cost, slowly, and with serious privacy and, at times, physical safety tradeoffs.
I would encourage you to look into how those usecases currently function, in a nuts-and-bolts way. It is ugly. A decent book on this subject is "Check Your Financial Privilege", by Alex Gladstein.
It's finally getting easier to build browser-based, zooming viewers for these resources since the protocol has emerged.
At Stanford I work on [Mirador](http://projectmirador.org/), another interface to these resources (with a built-in tiling window manager). I hope that one day all large images on the web will be deep-zoomable through IIIF by default.
The internet archive is another institution with an underappreciated wealth of perennially relevant content. They have hundreds of thousands of JP2s of timeless artworks.
It will be a great boon when decent open source software exists for encoding and decoding JP2.
Those asking about the meaning of symbols/translations might be interested in the recent announcement of the [Open Annotation Protocol Specification](http://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-model/) by the W3C.
This is not nested because it is only partly a reply to Jessealdridge.
I am new to hackernews, so I can't claim any idea of how to apply these ideas to that site. However, I find the notion of a "town center" a very intriguing one for the web, especially apropos of footnote 7 of the article. Most social sites act like huge suburbs, and many of their users are invariably suburbanites trying to escape the suburbs. In this way, the problem of a lack of place gets abstracted, and suburbanite communities emerge around topics that the real people can't discuss in their physical environments for lack of a place to do so. Their place to discuss things they would explore in the real world itself becomes amorphous and isolationist. But this is too broad; enter Dunbar's number.
I don't think Dunbar was the first to suggest that communities need a finite size, but his observation that that size is proportional to the volume of a brain region is interesting in that it provides an example of a willingness to assign a metric for community size to which human beings would be subject. This raises the question I'm trying to ask and the point of this long-winded comment.
How can we create fulfilling communities on-line that will enhance the essentially human aspects of such communities? Jessealdridge suggested breaking large communities up into smaller numbers (perhaps something like www.fluther.com allows). But if any metric like Dunbar's number is to be believed, this number should be a reflection of a deeper determinant of identity in a community, which itself requires an obvious representation in the allowable forms of interaction on the site. In the high-quality sites in the physical world, human communities are delineated by spatial relationships according to the organizing principles of architecture. But such places are rare in the physical world, and are mostly confined to very old cultures or small liberal arts colleges.
Perhaps one of the reasons that such frameworks of fulfilling human interaction are so rare is that they are very difficult to understand and very expensive to make. The web can do better at creating frameworks for human interaction because it uses information explicitly, potentially clarifying the underlying principles generating the framework, and because it is much less expensive for people to come together and create something on the web than it is for them to come together and make something architectural, in the physical world.
Unfortunately, this seems to mean (as you pointed out in your article) that sites much less often impart a sense of a change in place, or of a place at all. I wonder how the problems you've outlined (trolls, stupid comments, mean people) map onto the architectural representations of these problems, and how the solutions you've come up with could map onto architectural solutions to the analogues of those problems. In short, the article makes me wonder, however tangentially, how the web could benefit from being more than a surrogate, and perhaps more of a support structure, for physical human communities.
Could hackernews benefit from having some relationship to physical places?
- English - French - Japanese - Mandarin - ...many others
If you're interested in staying up-to-date, feel free to join our discord for daily frequency, or our mailing list for less frequent, big updates.
Join this Discord Server https://discord.gg/Ra29KXCp
Mailing list https://us11.list-manage.com/contact-form?u=7112a7b710649647... Follow us on Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/0GNgANfDjnCblcGidS7LPP